On April 15, 2026, a jury found that Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation, violated several federal and state antitrust laws through its ticketing and venue management practices. The verdict came after six weeks of trial, five weeks of which were led by state Attorney General offices (“AGs”) after the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) reached a surprise settlement with Live Nation and Ticketmaster on March 9th—a settlement that has provoked political scrutiny. Six states joined the DOJ’s controversial mid-trial settlement, and the remaining 34 AGs continued to try the case before the original empaneled jury, eventually receiving a favorable verdict on all counts.
The 2024 lawsuit was originally brought by the Biden-era DOJ and the AGs for 39 states and the District of Columbia; the 167-page operative complaint alleged a broad anticompetitive scheme in addition to specific individual instances of allegedly anticompetitive conduct.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s Competitive History
Many of the complaint’s claims centered around how Ticketmaster and Live Nation operate together to allegedly raise barriers to entry and entrench their existing monopoly.
According to the complaint, Ticketmaster enjoyed a dominant position in the primary ticketing services market for decades and Live Nation, the country’s largest concert promoter and venue owner, was a Ticketmaster client. In late 2008, Live Nation debuted its own ticketing platform; due to the company’s size and existing industry relationships, Live Nation quickly became the second-largest ticketing services vendor and allegedly a competitive threat to Ticketmaster. Less than two months after Live Nation began offering its ticketing services, the two companies formally announced a merger.
The United States and several state AGs sought to prevent the merger based on the potential for consolidation within the primary ticketing services market. Ultimately the parties reached a settlement in 2010, resulting in a consent judgment with Live Nation and Ticketmaster that permitted the merger with certain conditions. A decade later, the DOJ sought to modify the consent judgment to clarify and extend some of the conditions on which the merger was initially approved. An amended consent judgment was entered, and the parties were operating under that 2020 judgment when the 2024 complaint was filed. The modified consent judgment reaffirmed Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s agreement not to threaten or retaliate against any venue owner with respect to their choice of vendor for booking, promotional, ticketing, or similar services for live entertainment events.
The DOJ’s Lawsuit Against Live Nation and Ticketmaster
The DOJ and various state enforcers (collectively, “the governments”) alleged in the 2024 complaint that Live Nation and Ticketmaster violated some of the conditions in their 2020 consent judgment, particularly the non-retaliation provision. The governments brought Section 1 and Section 2 claims against the companies, alleging unlawful monopolization, exclusive dealing, tying, and various state antitrust claims. The complaint primarily sought an order requiring Live Nation, “at minimum,” to divest Ticketmaster, even though the parties had been merged for almost fifteen years at that point.
The governments alleged that Live Nation used its power in the concert promotion business as a “flywheel” to support and grow its higher-margin businesses, including ticketing services, venue ownership, and sponsorship and advertising. According to the complaint, Live Nation unlawfully used its market power to exclude market entrants and raise rivals’ costs in the market for ticketing service contracts with major concert venues. The governments also alleged a tying scheme whereby Live Nation required artists who desire to use Live Nation amphitheater venues to also agree to use Live Nation promotion services. These and some state-law claims went to trial, while other claims, including those alleging antitrust harm to the fan-facing ticketing services market, did not survive summary judgment.
The Proposed Settlement Terms and the Political Response
The terms for the DOJ’s mid-trial settlement include several behavioral remedies and a settlement sum of over $280 million to be allocated among the plaintiff states in exchange for termination of the DOJ’s pursuit of this case. Live Nation’s divestiture of Ticketmaster is noticeably absent from the settlement terms. Commentators and several state attorneys general have critiqued the settlement as insufficient to remedy the competitive harm done by Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
On April 14, one day prior to the jury’s verdict, several U.S. Senators wrote to the presiding judge in the Live Nation case urging him to “closely scrutinize [the DOJ’s] settlement” due to “concerning facts surrounding its submission.” These Senators argue that the settlement agreement may have been reached due to political pressure and without involvement of the DOJ attorneys trying the case; they suggest that the court should carefully review the settlement and reject it if not in the public interest. The same senators are also each co-sponsors of a new bill (S. 4107) that would amend the Clayton Act to increase the extent of review given to antitrust settlements. While several recent DOJ Antitrust Division settlements have been the subject of political scrutiny, the bill’s co-sponsors specifically cite the Live Nation settlement as a catalyst for its introduction.
The Jury Verdict and Current Status
Those state AGs who refused to sign on to the DOJ’s settlement continued to try the case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, with both sides making closing arguments on April 9th. After four days of deliberations, the jury concluded that Live Nation and Ticketmaster had violated both federal and state antitrust laws for their conduct related to the use of large amphitheater venues and ticketing services. The jury’s April 15th verdict found that these violations harmed competition in each of the 33 non-settling states and the District of Columbia.
The damages portion of the litigation will be scheduled for a bench trial at a later date; as laid out in the operative complaint, the non-settling states seek declaratory and injunctive relief (including Live Nation’s divestiture of Ticketmaster) in addition to civil penalties and treble damages. Following the verdict, Live Nation published a statement that “[t]he jury’s verdict is not the last word on the matter,” referencing its outstanding motions that could challenge the jury verdict; Live Nation indicated an intent to appeal any unfavorable rulings.
Takeaways
- The DOJ and several state attorneys general brought an antitrust suit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster in May 2024; the government enforcers sought to unwind the 2010 Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger in addition to other remedies.
- While the DOJ and a handful of state AGs reached settlement terms with Ticketmaster and Live Nation mid-trial, the remaining state AGs continued to try to the case seeking more substantial relief than that agreed to by the DOJ.
- Following the trial led by the remaining state AGs, a jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable for unlawful monopolization and tying practices on April 15, 2026. Damages and any claimed equitable relief will be decided at a future date.
- Several legislative and state executive officials were outspoken in opposition to the proposed DOJ-Live Nation settlement and are calling for stronger federal antitrust enforcement.
- This is one of several recent settlements reached by the DOJ Antitrust Division that have caused public criticism, indicating a broader political disagreement over how and when federal antitrust matters are resolved.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
